ELIZABETH LAMORTE
v.
PABLO TESTONI
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court's judgment establishing paternity and adjudicating timesharing and child support is affirmed, and the mother may seek modification of child support based on section 743.07(2) if applicable to the special needs child.
[1] A trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to modify child support based on section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes, to extend support beyond age eighteen for a dependent…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The court initially entering an order requiring one or both parents to make child support payments has continuing jurisdiction after the entry of the initial order to modify the amount and terms and conditions of the child support payments . . . if s. 743.07(2) applies”
Quoting Florida Statute § 61.13(1)(a)2. regarding continuing jurisdiction to modify child support
Elizabeth LaMorte appealed a judgment establishing Pablo Testoni's paternity of their minor children and adjudicating timesharing and child support. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
[ March 14, 2018 ]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Roger B. Colton, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 502016DR001039XXXNB.
Manuel Farach of McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Michael S. Dyer of the Law Office Michael Samuel Dyer, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
TAYLOR, J. The mother, Elizabeth LaMorte, appeals an Amended Final Judgment of Determination of Paternity, which established the appellee’s paternity of the parties’ minor children and adjudicated issues regarding timesharing and child support. We affirm on all issues, but write to address one of the mother’s arguments.
With respect to the mother’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to provide for support of the parties’ special needs child past the age of majority, we find that this issue was not preserved. However, our affirmance on this issue is without prejudice to the mother seeking a modification of child support on the basis that section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes, applies. See § 61.13(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The court initially entering an order requiring one or both parents to make child support payments has continuing jurisdiction after the entry of the initial order to modify the amount and terms and conditions of the child support payments . . . if s. 743.07(2) applies . . . .”); § 743.07(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) (a court may require support “for a dependent person beyond the age of
2
Affirmed. MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.